I want to talk about the wage gap, because (a) comments like this annoy me, and (b) it's actually a lot more complicated than people think. The wage gap is actually a combination of four different things, which all combine to make women earn less than men - and all four have different issues and different solutions.

Women are more likely work less due to caring responsibilities. Women are more likely to take career breaks, and more likely to work part time. Some of this is unavoidable - giving birth is traumatic to your body and you need a break to recover, and breastfeeding is something only women can do. But men also appreciate the chance to look after their children, and encouraging this via legally required paternity leave and trying to change the culture that says men 'shouldn't' be the stay-at-home parent will help both genders.

However, even when you measure pay per hour or fulltime equivalent, women are still paid less.

Industries which employ a majority of women tend to pay less than industries that employ a majority of men. Our society values jobs that are typically seen as 'masculine', like finance and mining, to jobs that are typically seen as 'feminine', like teaching or social work - or at any rate they are paid less. Obviously, there are exceptions. Changing this would be harder, and presumably is something that each industry needs to work on separately - but helping men realise they could be midwives, or women that they could be engineers, is good for everyone who might enjoy those jobs but are put off by society's idea of an 'appropriate' job for their gender.

However, even when you measure pay in each industry, the wage gap is (almost) always there - though it varies enormously between industries. Interestingly, industries like finance with higher average pay tend to have bigger gaps than industries like retail with lower average pay.

Women are less likely to have more senior jobs than men. Some of that is due to the first point, as women who have taken career breaks are less likely to get promoted. But it is also due to assumptions people implicitly make, about how dedicated women are to their jobs, or how capable women are at leading. There are lots of personality traits that are seen as 'good manager/leader skills' in a man, but 'bossy' or 'strident' or other unpleasant traits in a woman. It's usually subconscious bias rather than conscious sexism, but it is there. Look at politicians - female politicians are criticised for much less dishonesty than male politicians.

However, there are still industries, and job levels, where the men are still paid more than women to do the same job. Not all of them, and probably not most, but many of the best-paid. Which is a problem.

Women get paid less than men for the same job. As I said, not all jobs, but many of the better paid. But men are more likely to negotiate a higher pay when they get a job, are more likely to ask for a raise, and are more likely to get it when they ask.

So the end result is that the wage gap is several things, not just one, and is still a thing and a problem. It's not usually explicit sexism, and probably the people doing it don't realise they are. Subconscious bias is difficult because it's something we all have: you, me, everyone. We learn it from society as we are growing up, and it's hard to identify in ourselves and very hard to change. All we can do is do our best to think about it and try not to let it influence our decisions, and hope to bring up the next generation with less.

Your first point is fair, however it should be a choice for either parent, as opposed to an forced leave.

As for the careers that women take versus men, when was the last time you were in high school? The girls are absolutely begged to go into science and engineering (at least in Ontario), they simply do not want to as much as most men, on the whole. Women and men tend to have psychological differences, which lead them to different careers. Forcing women into jobs they do not want helps no one.

I've not heard anything about your third point that actually proves or disproves this.

In regards to your final point about women not negotiating high salaries, third-wave (modern) feminism is hurting that by teaching women that they should not need to stand up for themselves and, instead, others should simply give them everything.

Your first point is fair, however it should be a choice for either parent, as opposed to an forced leave.

Sorry that wasn't clear - I meant employers should be legally required to offer it, not that parents should have to take it. Though options where there is leave for fathers and leave for mothers that can't be transfered to the other parent (as well as leave that can) so that fathers are encouraged to take it is a good thing, because the more fathers who take paternity leave the more normal it seems and the less likely it is to have bad consequences for the father's career later on (or feel like it might have bad consequences, so fathers don't want to risk it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeman101

As for the careers that women take versus men, when was the last time you were in high school? The girls are absolutely begged to go into science and engineering (at least in Ontario), they simply do not want to as much as most men, on the whole. Women and men tend to have psychological differences, which lead them to different careers. Forcing women into jobs they do not want helps no one.

I'm a scientist, and a woman, and finished high school about a decade ago. My school certainly encouraged us to go into science and engineering, and I agree that there were plenty who didn't want to. No doubt most of them wouldn't have anyway, and there are also plenty of boys who aren't interested in science. No-one wants to force them into a career they dislike; my post certainly didn't say that. But there are people who are put off by other things: family expectations, what they see in the media, even gender-biased classes. I've sat in a university lecture as the only woman in a class of 60, and it feels uncomfortable. No doubt it's the same (or worse) if you're the only person of your race, or the only man in a class full of women.

As far as science is concerned, there is also a problem later on in careers - as a scientist you often have to move around the world in your late twenties and thirties, chasing temporary positions, before you get a permanent job. If you're female and want children, that's also the time you want to have kids... which is why the gender split at university level in science is actually not that bad, but later on is awful.

On the psychological differences thing: there's not a lot of evidence on this one. It's a very hard thing to study, because it's all tangled up with culture and unconscious bias and how we were brought up. But anyway, any differences are always on a spectrum, and there will be lots and lots of overlap. Having 45% of one gender and 55% of another in a career is reasonable, and might be psychological differences. 30% of one gender, or worse, is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeman101

I've not heard anything about your third point that actually proves or disproves this.

In regards to your final point about women not negotiating high salaries, third-wave (modern) feminism is hurting that by teaching women that they should not need to stand up for themselves and, instead, others should simply give them everything.

I certainly agree that women should stand up for themselves, and teaching women not to is not helpful. It's certainly not part of feminism as I understand it. However, understanding the unconscious biases we all have, including those that say women shouldn't try to negotiate a higher salary while men can, and trying to resist that is good for all of us.

But there are people who are put off by other things: family expectations, what they see in the media, even gender-biased classes.

You brought up family expectations twice in your reply. If frequent travel is the nature of a career in science and women either will not or cannot move around, how is that an issue of equality? A male scientists who moves frequently makes the decision to spend time away from his family, just as a female scientist would have to.

As for popular media, science is usually neglected as a whole. I don't see any examples where the media portrayal of science would have any impact on anyone's career choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

Having 45% of one gender and 55% of another in a career is reasonable, and might be psychological differences. 30% of one gender, or worse, is not.

I have heard this point brought up innumerous times, but there is an enormous double-standard in when it comes to which careers are criticized for a lack of gender parody and which are not. There is an extreme gender imbalance of male to female sanitation workers and construction workers, however I have yet to hear a single complaint over those careers, only ever more comfortable ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

I certainly agree that women should stand up for themselves, and teaching women not to is not helpful. It's certainly not part of feminism as I understand it. However, understanding the unconscious biases we all have, including those that say women shouldn't try to negotiate a higher salary while men can, and trying to resist that is good for all of us.

While specifically neglecting to negotiate salaries are not a tenant of modern feminism, modern feminism does teach women not to stand up for or take care of themselves. Modern feminists tend to oppose, for example, learning self-defense or monitoring their alcohol intake, stating instead that we should "teach men not to rape/sexually assault" women.

The same logic that leads to this statement would also lead to statements such as: "We should not lock our doors and instead teach thieves not to steal" and "We should not be wary of our surroundings and instead teach murderers not to murder."

In almost every way, modern feminism treats women like a protected group, which must be sheltered from reality at all cost.

PidelI, not everyone lives where you do with certain laws. If unequal pay was not an issue then why is the subject brought up by politicians in my country?
Patriarchal attitudes do indeed still exist, and if you think not you live in a bubble. "Conspiracy theories" - really? Give me a break. Nor was I spreading "misinformation". Just because it may not be true where you live does not mean it isn't true elsewhere.

If you were talking about the patriarchal cultures in Islamic countries, I'll gladly concede that there is a patriarchy there. I was assuming you were talking about Western countries, that's why I said "in the West". Which culture are you talking about, and what do you define as "patriarchy" and "patriarchal attitudes"? I think we need some clear definitions if we're going to have a meaningful discussion. "If unequal pay was not an issue then why is the subject brought up by politicians in my country?" - because they want to lure misinformed feminists into voting for them. Politicians lie all of the time to get votes, that's what they want. Or maybe they are simply misinformed. Politicians talking about something doesn't make it true. The point is, the wage gap "theory" isn't supported by serious economists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gummilutt

In contrary of popular belief Sweden is not the most equal country in the world. Having a law to say wages must be equal is not the same thing as actually having equal wages. There are countless studies on the topic, the only ones who keep insisting it's not a problem are misinformed men who want things to remain the same.

It's just as true here as it is elsewhere. We've gotten a little farther than some countries, but that doesn't mean we've gotten far.

Actually I was talking about USA, but Sweden also has anti discrimination laws. Where are these studies you are talking about? Citation needed. Also, no, there are plenty enough women who reject the pay gap myth. Some examples are Christina Hoff Sommers, Blaire White, Lauren Southern and many others. Not that they are economists, but since you apparently think only "misinformed men" reject the pay gap myth. And anti-feminism is on the rise, with a lot of women joining the movement. I would also like to see you refute the common sense-argument I provided (why companies don't just hire women if they can pay women less).

Also, I need to ask, since you say we haven't come far, what is the end goal of feminism? You see, both the first and second wave of feminism had clear defined goals, such as the right to vote, and being equal in the eyes of the law. What is the current goal? "Gender equality" is too vague. When will feminism stop? It seems to me it has already fulfilled its purpose, and feminists now are actually looking to become above men. By inventing issues, and demanding extra advantages, such as affirmative action. Feminists today don't seem to realize equality ≠ equal outcome in society, but rather equality = equal opportunities. Which you already have.

Was going to reply in the original thread but it was closed before I got a chance to respond.

@joandsarah77

"A regular member has now left due to these last two threads, I hope all of you posting offensive comments are proud of yourselves. I find this quite upsetting. And no I have not read this thread, I don't want to. But if someone is offended enough to leave then this thread was obviously not a nice experience for them as the Sims 2 boards should be."

What is offensive to one person is not offensive to another person. It's never someone else's fault if someone decides to leave a forum for being offended. Being offended is a choice. And at the end of the day, if you can't handle differing opinions, you don't belong on a forum in the first place. I only ever saw one personal attack in this thread (against HarVee) and that was never handled.

I understand politics should be kept out of the rest of the forum, but if you're going to enforce it, do it from the first post, (even if you agree with it) or people are naturally going to keep responding. Tell them that they need to move over to the debate forum or all following posts about it will be deleted. That way you don't need to lock threads. And members who don't want to see politics will not need to see it.

Was going to reply in the original thread but it was closed before I got a chance to respond.

@joandsarah77

"A regular member has now left due to these last two threads, I hope all of you posting offensive comments are proud of yourselves. I find this quite upsetting. And no I have not read this thread, I don't want to. But if someone is offended enough to leave then this thread was obviously not a nice experience for them as the Sims 2 boards should be."

What is offensive to one person is not offensive to another person. It's never someone else's fault if someone decides to leave a forum for being offended.

I understand politics should be kept out of the rest of the forum, but if you're going to enforce it, do it from the first post, (even if you agree with it) or people are naturally going to keep responding. Tell them that they need to move over to the debate forum or all following posts about it will be deleted. That way you don't need to lock threads. And members who don't want to see politics will not need to see it.

If I had seen anything offensive/ been made aware that a person felt racially discriminated against/offended/triggered I most certainly would have given a warning sooner. However since I don't have super x-ray powers to look into threads that I haven't clicked on/that have not been reported I did as soon as I was told about it. Which if you look to the other thread you will see me asking about it. I am not a sims 2 board thread moderator so I am not scanning for things.

"I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives." - Unknown

That part I wasn't directing to you personally, that was more in general, for future reference. I mean there were other moderators who came in sooner but they didn't do anything after people kept posting about it.

If you were talking about the patriarchal cultures in Islamic countries, I'll gladly concede that there is a patriarchy there. I was assuming you were talking about Western countries, that's why I said "in the West". Which culture are you talking about, and what do you define as "patriarchy" and "patriarchal attitudes"? I think we need some clear definitions if we're going to have a meaningful discussion. "If unequal pay was not an issue then why is the subject brought up by politicians in my country?" - because they want to lure misinformed feminists into voting for them. Politicians lie all of the time to get votes, that's what they want. Or maybe they are simply misinformed. Politicians talking about something doesn't make it true. The point is, the wage gap "theory" isn't supported by serious economists.

Actually I was talking about USA, but Sweden also has anti discrimination laws. Where are these studies you are talking about? Citation needed. Also, no, there are plenty enough women who reject the pay gap myth. Some examples are Christina Hoff Sommers, Blaire White, Lauren Southern and many others. Not that they are economists, but since you apparently think only "misinformed men" reject the pay gap myth. And anti-feminism is on the rise, with a lot of women joining the movement. I would also like to see you refute the common sense-argument I provided (why companies don't just hire women if they can pay women less).

@Pideli This is something that I'm very interested in, and something that annoys me when people get wrong, so I'm going to answer you here. The gender wage gap is actually four things wrapped up in one, as I've explained in detail in my earlier post in this thread - it's helpfully quoted at the top of the page so you can read it in full. As you said, a lot (though not all) of the differences in average male and female wages is about men and women doing different jobs, rather than the same job for less pay. That's also a problem - for men as well as women - but it's a slightly different problem with different solutions.

The gender pay gap between men and women doing the same job doesn't happen everywhere, or even in most jobs. It's certainly not seen at lower paid or entry-level jobs where an employer has lots of good candidates for the role - as you say, if employers could get away with paying women less they'd all employ women for the kind of job where "find the cheapest person who can do this" is the criteria. That's why studies that compare male and female pay for people in their early-mid twenties show no gender pay gap, or even women being paid more - because women are slightly more likely to have a university education (which is something else that needs fixing), and university graduates are paid (slightly ) more than those without. But once you look at more senior jobs, employers are much more concerned with finding the "best" person, and paying them to work there - and too many employers' "best" criteria includes a subconscious "has a penis" requirement. Or just many successful male candidates are better at persuading their employer to pay them more. Here is an article about an Australian study, while this discusses the issue more broadly (with some actual statistics).

And as you say, it's not just misinformed men that don't accept the gender pay gap - there are also some misinformed women.

[...]as you say, if employers could get away with paying women less they'd all employ women for the kind of job where "find the cheapest person who can do this" is the criteria.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say "where 'find the cheapest person who can do this' is the criteria", I said in general. I'm talking about two equally qualified individuals. If there were a man and a woman applying for a job who were equally qualified, why would a company not hire the woman if she were equally qualified and they could get away with paying her less? It makes no sense. Unless you have the world view that everyone is sexist. I don't. If they're not equally qualified, then it's not an issue. I thought this was about women getting paid less than men because they're women? Not that some people are paid more for being better workers. I would have a problem with the first scenario, but if some are paid more for being better employees, and they just happen to be men, everything is in order.

If you think it's unfair that male-oriented work fields have higher pay, get a job in that field. What's the issue? There is nothing stopping you from going into male-oriented working fields as a woman. If you're committed enough, you won't care about the perceived discouragement from society. And if you care more about what other people think than your ambition, maybe you aren't fit for the job in the first place. (Not that I believe they even are discouraged in this day and age, generally.)

Got me thinking of the "ban bossy"-campaign. Some sort of outcry that women can't become bosses because they are discouraged by being called "bossy". As if you would be a leader type in the first place if you get stopped by a word ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

Here is an article about an Australian study, while this discusses the issue more broadly (with some actual statistics).

That article also says that in every single industry there is a gender wage gap that favors men. That is objectively not true, as in the modelling industry, women make a LOT more money than men. I also don't see feminists campaigning to get more women into coal mining, construction working, garbage collection, and other hard jobs that also have much more men than women. It's just the comfortable jobs.

I don't think male-oriented jobs pay more because society favors men. I think it has to do with what those jobs actually mean for society or how much money is involved. Civil engineering, science, law enforcement, finance, etc, hold up the society, or have a lot of money circulating in them. The modeling industry also has huge money circulating in it, but is largely dominated by women, and it's also a higher paying field. So I think it's deceptive to assume sexism here. Either way, I don't see the relevance, because again, a woman can still get a job in these work fields if she so chooses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

But once you look at more senior jobs, employers are much more concerned with finding the "best" person, and paying them to work there - and too many employers' "best" criteria includes a subconscious "has a penis" requirement.

Proof needed. I don't feel like spending hours on reading reports to find an answer to one question, so if you could point me to the part where it proves women are paid less than men because of discrimination, and not these other VERY RELEVANT factors, and if that's true I'll gladly concede. So until then it's just speculative. This is how you end up with conspiracy theories. I'm sure this is the case in SOME cases, but you make it sound like it's the standard. And I find that hard to believe. The West isn't this misogynistic hellhole that you make it out to be. That title belongs to the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

Or just many successful male candidates are better at persuading their employer to pay them more.

Then it isn't discrimination. Then they aren't paid more for just being men. They're paid more because they negotiated a higher salary.

I did skim through the report from that page, and on page 3 it interestingly says: "The national gender pay gap based on AWE is a symbol for the overall position of women in the workforce. It
does not show â€˜like-for-likeâ€™ pay gaps, that is employees working in the same or comparable roles, nor
determine or explain the causes of any differences in earnings between women and men." Sooo, exactly how does this help your argument? That's exactly what I'm saying, the wage gap almost completely vanishes when you actually look at the exact same job.

The problem is that feminists have too much of a group-think. Even though women as a group make less than men as a group, you still have individual freedom. A woman can take a higher paying job and earn as much, or more than a man. This wouldn't be possible at all in an actual patriarchy. Just look at Saudi Arabia where women can't even leave the house without a man's permission. There you can REALLY talk about sexist systems holding women down. The problem is that feminists look at these numbers and assume sexism. Feminists did the same thing when they brought up the "pink tax ".
They don't look deeper into it.

For sake of argument, let's say everything you say is true. Then women who are paid less than men need to speak up, and if it doesn't help, report it, as it's already against the law. Even in Australia. What feminism does is teaching women to blame society (men) for everything that's wrong in their life instead of taking matters into their own hands. What we need is strong women who stand up for themselves. Not deflecting trigglypuffs .

And you don't solve it by setting up new laws that would give you unfair advantages, or however else you would plan to solve this. Like I said, you already have equal rights in law, so what is your solution to this? I have to ask again, what is the goal of feminism? I would prefer to not have the rest of my first post thrown away.

Yes, when you account for all relevant factors, there is still a very small wage gap, I am aware of that, however one could theorize it's because women tend to not negotiate higher salaries as much as men (generally). But the "77 cents for every dollar a man makes"-wage gap is absolutely a myth .

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyCarey

And as you say, it's not just misinformed men that don't accept the gender pay gap - there are also some misinformed women.

Took some low hanging fruit there, I see, but no, not misinformed. We just don't assume sexism is behind everything.

I knew someone would bring that up, but I'm saying in general, of course those jobs are also important and should have higher wages, I agree, but those industries don't deal with huge money either. And I don't think it's fair to assume that sexism is behind the lower wages

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say "where 'find the cheapest person who can do this' is the criteria", I said in general. I'm talking about two equally qualified individuals. If there were a man and a woman applying for a job who were equally qualified, why would a company not hire the woman if she were equally qualified and they could get away with paying her less? It makes no sense. Unless you have the world view that everyone is sexist. I don't. If they're not equally qualified, then it's not an issue. I thought this was about women getting paid less than men because they're women? Not that some people are paid more for being better workers. I would have a problem with the first scenario, but if some are paid more for being better employees, and they just happen to be men, everything is in order.

That wasn't what I was saying. I said that when employers are trying to find a candidate for a high-paying role, they're less concerned about "who will accept the lowest wages" and more concerned with "who is the best person to employ". And the "who is the best person" is subjective, and hard to decide. And then once they have decided on their best person and offered that person a job, men are more likely to ask for more money, and more likely to get it - without being more qualified. Do men really deserve to be paid more money because society rewards boys for being confident and girls for being understanding of the other person's point of view? Because that's where a lot of this comes from.

I can't quote you the source, because I don't have a link, but I've seen several studies of STEM researchers, comparing men and women. Both genders achieve the same results in terms of academic papers published, students completing PhDs, grant money awarded, etc. But the men get paid more. In Australian academia at least (I don't know the details in other countries), there's this thing called 'pay loading' where the academic's base salary gets increased. Men are more likely to ask for it, to get recommended for it, and to get it. Yet women are doing just as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

If you think it's unfair that male-oriented work fields have higher pay, get a job in that field. What's the issue? There is nothing stopping you from going into male-oriented working fields as a woman. If you're committed enough, you won't care about the perceived discouragement from society. And if you care more about what other people think than your ambition, maybe you aren't fit for the job in the first place. (Not that I believe they even are discouraged in this day and age, generally.)

I have a job in a male-oriented field. So I can talk about the discouragement around. My mother is also in the same field, so when I was growing up anyone who tried to suggest that women weren't suited to my kind of job was clearly silly, as my mother was better at it than anyone who might be giving that suggestion. But I watched my contempories listen to comments about 'doing their bit for society' and 'making a contribution' that weren't directed at the boys - and saw people reconsidering school teaching as a profession. I sat in university lectures that were only ever given by men, and where I was the only woman in the audience, or one of only a handful in a big class. And recently I've watched a colleague try to persuade our employer to give her space to pump and then breastmillk for her baby daughter, and get only puzzled reactions and a "nobody else wanted that".

And in a slightly different field, I've watched a friend sobbing about how she'd always wanted to be an engineer, but after four years of horrible sexist and sexual "jokes" and comments from fellow students and her lecturers she just couldn't face it any more. At least in my field the sexist comments are rare. But in your example my friend shouldn't be an engineer because "if [she's] committed enough, [she] won't care about the perceived discouragement from society" even though all the men who tormented her can be engineers without any test of commitment...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

That article also says that in every single industry there is a gender wage gap that favors men. That is objectively not true, as in the modelling industry, women make a LOT more money than men. I also don't see feminists campaigning to get more women into coal mining, construction working, garbage collection, and other hard jobs that also have much more men than women. It's just the comfortable jobs.

Oh, I'm so sorry I forgot about modelling /sarcasm.

You might not see anything about getting more women in coal mining and construction working, but I have. You're clearly not reading the right things. If I have time later I might hunt them down and add them to this post. Admittedly I haven't seen anything about getting more women into garbage collection, but I haven't seen anything about getting anyone into garbage collection so... I did see a fascinating article about a male midwife encouraging more men to embrace that profession, as well as various people encouraging men to be nurses and primary school teachers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

I don't think male-oriented jobs pay more because society favors men. I think it has to do with what those jobs actually mean for society or how much money is involved. Civil engineering, science, law enforcement, finance, etc, hold up the society, or have a lot of money circulating in them. The modeling industry also has huge money circulating in it, but is largely dominated by women, and it's also a higher paying field. So I think it's deceptive to assume sexism here. Either way, I don't see the relevance, because again, a woman can still get a job in these work fields if she so chooses.

This one's been answered - nursing and teaching are prime examples. And the "have a lot of money circulating in them" is because it's the kind of thing men value...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

Proof needed. I don't feel like spending hours on reading reports to find an answer to one question, so if you could point me to the part where it proves women are paid less than men because of discrimination, and not these other VERY RELEVANT factors, and if that's true I'll gladly concede. So until then it's just speculative. This is how you end up with conspiracy theories. I'm sure this is the case in SOME cases, but you make it sound like it's the standard. And I find that hard to believe. The West isn't this misogynistic hellhole that you make it out to be. That title belongs to the Middle East and Northern Africa.

And my entire post was all about those very relevant factors and how sexism is involved! And if your criteria for 'sexism is over!' is 'better than the Middle East'... well, I have higher standards.

I also don't have time right now to find page and paragraph, but I'll get back to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

Then it isn't discrimination. Then they aren't paid more for just being men. They're paid more because they negotiated a higher salary.

And I'm saying that they negotiated a higher salary because they're men! Because society treats overconfidence in boys as a virtue, and tells girls they should be modest. And confident people ask for more pay - and often get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

I did skim through the report from that page, and on page 3 it interestingly says: "The national gender pay gap based on AWE is a symbol for the overall position of women in the workforce. It
does not show â€˜like-for-likeâ€™ pay gaps, that is employees working in the same or comparable roles, nor
determine or explain the causes of any differences in earnings between women and men." Sooo, exactly how does this help your argument? That's exactly what I'm saying, the wage gap almost completely vanishes when you actually look at the exact same job.

And I'm saying that the other factors are important, because sexism is very involved in them as well, which is why the pay gap is reported the way it is. But when you look at 'like-for'like' pay gaps, they are (almost always) still there. Keep reading the report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

The problem is that feminists have too much of a group-think. Even though women as a group make less than men as a group, you still have individual freedom. A woman can take a higher paying job and earn as much, or more than a man. This wouldn't be possible at all in an actual patriarchy. Just look at Saudi Arabia where women can't even leave the house without a man's permission. There you can REALLY talk about sexist systems holding women down. The problem is that feminists look at these numbers and assume sexism. Feminists did the same thing when they brought up the "pink tax ".
They don't look deeper into it.

I didn't realise that we had to improve Saudi Arabia before we could even talk about the problems in other parts of the world... /sarcasm.

Isn't it usually a good idea to deal with your own problems before you start criticising other peoples'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pideli

For sake of argument, let's say everything you say is true. Then women who are paid less than men need to speak up, and if it doesn't help, report it, as it's already against the law. Even in Australia. What feminism does is teaching women to blame society (men) for everything that's wrong in their life instead of taking matters into their own hands. What we need is strong women who stand up for themselves. Not deflecting trigglypuffs .

And you don't solve it by setting up new laws that would give you unfair advantages, or however else you would plan to solve this. Like I said, you already have equal rights in law, so what is your solution to this? I have to ask again, what is the goal of feminism? I would prefer to not have the rest of my first post thrown away.

Yes, when you account for all relevant factors, there is still a very small wage gap, I am aware of that, however one could theorize it's because women tend to not negotiate higher salaries as much as men (generally). But the "77 cents for every dollar a man makes"-wage gap is absolutely a myth .

I know it's against the law. Even in Australia . Society =/= men. Society is all of us, and many of the things are subconscious - we don't even realise we're doing them. And feminism is trying to combat that. Trying to teach everyone that gender roles aren't as important as society suggests. Trying to encourage girls to join male-dominated careers, and boys to join female-dominated ones. Trying to stop childbirth from having such a detrimental effect on women's careers, when fatherhood has a positive effect on men's - by passing laws about parental leave (for both genders) and childcare provisions. Trying to make sure harassed women have legal recourse, like my friend the female engineer.

I know it's against the law. Even in Australia . Society =/= men. Society is all of us, and many of the things are subconscious - we don't even realise we're doing them. And feminism is trying to combat that. Trying to teach everyone that gender roles aren't as important as society suggests. Trying to encourage girls to join male-dominated careers, and boys to join female-dominated ones. Trying to stop childbirth from having such a detrimental effect on women's careers, when fatherhood has a positive effect on men's - by passing laws about parental leave (for both genders) and childcare provisions. Trying to make sure harassed women have legal recourse, like my friend the female engineer.

And don't forget shutting down Men's Rights Activist activities because obviously men are evil and have everything handed to them with no problems of their own.

Look, I support feminism. However, I wish gender wasn't a thing. How cool would it be if how you wanted to dress and act and what type of genitalia you had were seperate things, and there was no gender roles or whatever. But in the meantime, there's femenism.

well if your talking about the thing that makes women utter things such as "kill all white men they are the source of evil" then i'd destroy feminism BUT if its proper feminism which is about equality it's mostly fine.

I May Be Life Dumb But I'm Sim Smart(mostly).
cats are better than humans and shall takeover earth in a couple of centuries after they evolve.